FacebookTwitterDiggStumbleuponGoogle BookmarksRedditTechnoratiLinkedin

Help Review LOS Poster

on .

MFMP is presenting a poster at ICCF18 about our Live Open Science methodology.  I have a nearly complete draft that I would very much appreciate comments on, if anybody would like to chip in.  Any impressions or suggestions would be welcome. Did I forget any major points?  I know of a few formatting issues, but go ahead and mark one up and send it back, or comment below.  

The poster is in 2 pdf files.




-Ryan Hunt

Add comment

Security code


0 #13 Smitha362 2015-06-25 19:36
I like what you guys tend to be up too. Such clever work and coverage! Keep up the very good works guys I've incorporated you guys to my personal blogroll. kebgfdadbbgdkag d
0 #12 Robert Ellefson 2013-07-15 03:10
I don't see how you can use the GPL software licensing model for this sort of technology. The intent is certainly appropriate here, but patent law and copyright law are not equivalent, and their differences regarding the viability of a "hardware GPL" are formidable. Once "prior art" has been established by publication, commercializati on or whatever other criteria may be required, then that technology is defined to be in the public domain and can be re-used openly.

This does not prevent people from leveraging the knowledge gained from public-domain science activities and basing their own commercial developments off of this. So long as they do not attempt to monopolize that core technology derived from public-domain sources, this does not seem to me to pose a fundamental problem for the purposes of LOS.

The key enabler, IMHO, is to create and maintain sufficient goodwill in thought and deed among contributors towards open science in order for it to perpetuate. Otherwise, it dies. I don't see how we can legislate this tree into bearing fruit; it must be nourished, and the sun must be allowed to shine on it.
0 #11 bob 2013-07-12 14:33
@Robert I agree for the most part with your comments. However, we have to distinguish commercializati on of MFMP LOS derived LENR technology from hording the technology itself. IBM and Samsung both make loads of money from Linux but neither "own" the technology. We need to encourage enterprises to make commercial products using the MFMP derived LOS technologies, while at the same time not allowing them to stifle competition/inn ovation by claiming the underlying technology as theirs. More controvercially we need to "force" them to recontribute extensions to the base MFMP technology back to the common pool. IBM contributes to Linux not because it wants to, but because it has to.
0 #10 Ryan Hunt 2013-07-12 14:33
@ Bob - Thank you. I am incorporating that. I incorporated the other suggestions here, too.

@ All - Now that the poster is due, I will make this blog entry less prominent. Thanks to all who helped me.
+1 #9 bob 2013-07-12 12:37
I don't know if this belongs on the poster, but I do know that it is important for the long term success of open source science. If you examine the factors which determine the success of open source software projects one thing floats immediately to the surface: the open source licence. MFMP needs to look forward to the future after a LENR experiment has been successfully replicated and the apparatus distributed to all comers. What prevents someone taking all our collective learning and wrapping it in a proprietary licence/patent? In my opinion open source science needs to come up with the equivalent to the GPL licence for derivative works of MFMP efforts. If we simply rely on attribution licences or good will to re-contribute innovations back to the common pool we will not succeed. eg. BSD Unix vs. Linux.
0 #8 Robert Greenyer 2013-07-11 16:56

Wealthy Investors often want to get involved when the job is basically done, or at a point where they think that can prize away an invention for a song or by obfuscation of the capital structure of a deal.

Primary research science such as this is ideal for LOS as it is not something an investor would readily touch and they are probably vested also in its competitive technologies.

There is actually a VERY good case for investors to invest in something such as the MFMP... KNOWING that they will get no return, but that it will have a social multiplier effect and with a technology such as this, the potential for business when the basics are done is profound.

People make good money from making android smartphones and yet others from making decent cars based on the ICE.

This research is absolutely suited for crowd, private and government investment, the benefits will benefit all.
0 #7 arian558 2013-07-11 09:40
More about Rydberg matter clusters and fusion:

Ultrahigh-density deuterium of Rydberg matter clusters for inertial
confinement fusion targets

0 #6 Kapytanhook 2013-07-11 05:58
'I think you made a mistake in poster A in the middle column
"develop and share knowledge, so doing it openly and rapidly is a natural."

0 #5 arian558 2013-07-11 05:33
Defkalion's favorite theory :

Theory of Bose-Einstein condensation mechanism for deuteron-induce d nuclear reactions in micro/nano-scal e metal grains and particles by Yeong E. Kim Department of Physics, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN 47906, USA




0 #4 Robert Ellefson 2013-07-11 04:21
LOS does not require all efforts to be without economic or academic returns. At least in the early days of open-source software, a major portion of the contributions came from corporate employees who were paid by their employers to contribute to the projects because that company found value in the existence and enhancement of the software. The same model may well emerge in LOS, where corporations participate voluntarily because it helps them accomplish their overall goals.

Personally, I intend to lobby for all future US public science funding to come with open-access strings attached. I don't see why we still fund researchers who are then allowed to sit on their results until they can extract whatever IP they want out of it. All taxpayer-funded research should go straight into the public domain, IMHO. This does not mean that these researchers should work for free, nor does it mean they should not publish academic papers. It may well mean that academia needs to adapt to the new reality of modern life and give up some of the closed-door mentality that it lives within now.
0 #3 Ryan Hunt 2013-07-11 04:06
Great comments Ecco. I should retool a section to talk about that trade off.
Ed, with the approach we are taking, we are giving away everything and we don't have anything the rich can't get as readily as everyone else. As ecco pointed out, it's not a great recipe for getting investments, unless you do it like these guys are:
0 #2 Edwin Pell 2013-07-11 01:05
Relying on noblesse oblige went out 200 years ago. I will not prostitute myself to the rich. I hope the MFMP will not either.
+1 #1 Ecco 2013-07-10 22:48
You included the good sides, but what about the downsides of LOS? For example, the openness will turn off wealthy investors who might be able otherwise to provide financial backing needed for the experiments. And speaking of financial backing, crowdfunding is not guaranteed to make you reach the expected funding goals in the timeframe needed.

The very fact that LOS is performed on a totally voluntary basis, with absolutely no economic or academic returns can be a double edged sword.

Also, the fact that experimental data is completely open and subject to immediate scrutiny and interpretation, plus community pressure, can lead to premature conclusions about positive results which might have to be retracted.

Here is your generous contributions so far towards our $500,000 target, thanks everyone! : $45,020   Please Donate
See the current state of our booked costs here